No - the military can fill its ranks any number of ways. Right now, it's largely effective in filling the ranks, minus the Army Reserve. But it's not effective in overcoming institutional self-selection. Think of self-selection as institutional incest.Originally Posted by carl
One of the problems with that position is that it's not my position.It order to do that it must establish race and sex goals or quotas for these groups otherwise they won't sign up in sufficient numbers. In other words it must bribe these groups by dangling guarantees of position to entice them into joining. There is a problem with that position.
One - Thomas Sowell is a partisan hack. There's a couple of well-written articles out there about it. Two - why are "some groups just more inclined than others"? And if the disinclined are among the fastest growing groups in the country, what are the consequences for the military?Some groups are just more inclined than others to go in. Different groups going into different professions or fields is quite normal in society. Thomas Sowell has written about that a lot.
Compensation is bribery?Another problem with your position is that you are saying that they can be bribed. You are saying in effect that we can overcome their unwillingness to serve by bribing them. Them they will sign up. That is insulting.Statistically, there is a range of monetary and in-kind compensation that predicts X to Z amount of enlistees will join for every $ in benefits. That some groups, generally defined, may require more compensation than others is not surprising, irrelevant, or insulting. What's insulting - and not founded in reality - is the idea that everyone is joining the services out of patriotism, and that this is the only good reason to join. People join for many reasons - for adventure, for the benefits and pension, for the professional skills, for school, for their friends or family, and so on. Knowing the segmentation of American demographics is absolutely important to filling the ranks and for communication with the public. And people stay for many of the same reasons, which is why when the Army was hemorrhaging junior officers, it didn't appeal to their patriotism; it offered them material incentives to stay. And it still does this today for enlisted soldiers.
And you have not demonstrated why that is detrimental to the armed forces. The mission of the armed services is to fight and win the nation's wars, but that's not the only function of armed services in a country. It provides employment, education opportunities, skills training, and social normalization. In the US, these functions are generally applauded and supported - not so much in other countries. As the make-up of the country changes, so too will the relationship between the public and the military as an institution. The military can be pro-active and get ahead of this trend or it can increasingly isolate itself from society-at-large. Eventually, and this has already started, people will start asking why are we paying soldiers relatively well when everyone else's salaries are flat; why are we building schools around the world when schools here are failing; why do we prop up governments abroad when local governments here are going bankrupt. Those are the questions that senior leaders need to be prepared to address because it will impact the readiness of the armed forces even though they are not directly related to fighting and winning wars. We got a taste of this with sequestration when the assumption that the GOP will protect the defense budget was over-turned by the zeal to enforce government retrenchment. And we'll see training budgets, staffing, and pay and benefits continue to be cut.He believes the demographic of the officer corps needs to reflect the demographic of society at large.
You went from "the officer corps needs to reflect the demographic of society at large" to "the US military, the great leveler, would have to create a race code". Slow down speed racer. By the way, the military already tracks its service-members' race, religion, sex, etc.Aside from the denigration of talent for fighting and leading that reflects, I suspect he has no idea of the administrative mess it would create. Who is black? What is white? What is mixed race and how should we count it? Is Sikh a race or a religion? Is religion race? Depending on the answers to those questions and what the % of this or that is projected to be when the next promotion cycle comes there would be a mad scramble to document that indeed this person is whatever would help get him promoted. The military being what it is there would have to be published procedures and policies relating to all of this. They would have to determine what was black, white, brown and variations thereof. And you know what that would mean? It would mean the US military, the great leveler, would have to create a race code, something not seen since the 30s in Europe and a long time ago in the South.
Be confident that your promotion was by merit alone.I am glad to see that today I am only a superficial reactionary fear monger. Yesterday I was a racist so I am coming up in the world.
Bookmarks